Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 166 Issue GE6 Geotechnical Engineering 166 December 2013 Issue GE6
Pages 549–560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00101
The base resistance of non-displacement Paper 1100101
piles in sand. Part II: finite-element analyses Received 30/10/2011 Accepted 24/09/2012
Published online 22/02/2013
Tolooiyan and Gavin Keywords: foundations/geotechnical engineering/piles & piping

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The base resistance of

non-displacement piles in sand.
Part II: finite-element analyses
j
1 Ali Tolooiyan MSc, PhD j
2 Kenneth Gavin PhD
Research Fellow, Monash University, Australia, formerly University Lecturer, School of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering,
College Dublin, Ireland University College Dublin, Ireland

j
1 j
2

A wide range of correlations have been proposed between cone penetration test end resistance, qc , and the ultimate
end bearing pressure developed by bored piles. The qc value is typically related to the pile end bearing resistance at
a normalised pile displacement equal to 10% of the pile diameter, qb0:1 , through a correlation factor, Æ. While it is
generally accepted that constant Æ factors can be applied for the design of displacement piles, a combination of field
tests and finite-element analyses of bored piles in sand has resulted in a myriad of design approaches, some of which
suggest that Æ varies with pile geometry, stress level and sand density. In this paper the results of finite-element
analyses are presented which suggest that a constant Æ factor can be adopted for the design of deep foundations in
sand.

Notation qc CPT end resistance

B pile diameter; pile width Rf CPT friction ratio
C1 , C2 Meyerhof reduction factors Rint interface reduction factor
D pile length r radius
Dr relative density s displacement; settlement
E Young’s modulus sb base displacement
E50 measured stiffness for  ¼ 50% of max Æ empirical reduction factor; relative density
Eoed stiffness derived from oedometer test ª gamma unit weight
Eref
oed oedometer stiffness at the reference stress of 100 kPa Ł cone angle
Eref
ur oedometer unload–reload stiffness  v9 vertical effective stress
Eref
50 triaxial stiffness measured at 50% of the maximum 1 major principal stress
deviator stress 3 minor principal stress
Eur triaxial unloading stiffness  shear stress
einit initial void ratio max maximum shear stress
emax maximum void ratio  friction angle of soil
emin minimum void ratio cv constant volume friction angle
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest m mobilised friction angle
kc reduction factor łm ultimate dilatancy angle
L pile length
m input parameter 1. Introduction
Nq bearing capacity factor The end bearing resistance, qb , mobilised by a deep footing in
plimit pressuremeter limit pressure sand can be calculated, using bearing capacity theory, as
pref reference stress level
qb end bearing resistance; base pressure
qb0:1 pile base resistance at 10% of pile diameter 1: qb ¼ N q  v9
qbu ultimate end bearing resistance

549
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 166 Issue GE6
where Nq is a bearing capacity factor, and  v9 is the vertical
effective stress prior to pile installation at the pile base. Various
workers have presented theoretical Nq values that are dependent
on the friction angle of the soil, the assumed failure surface, and
the pile installation method. The Nq values recommended for
bored and cast-in-place piles are typically assumed to be 50% of
those derived for driven piles. Because in situ tests such as the
cone penetration test (CPT) provide continuous profiles of in situ
soil conditions, several empirical correlations between the CPT
end resistance qc and qb have been proposed. The earliest
correlation between the end bearing resistance of bored piles and
qc was suggested by Meyerhof (1956, 1976, 1983). He reviewed
theoretical and experimental studies on deep foundations in sand,
and introduced two reduction factors, C1 and C2 , which he used
to account for scale effects: the effect of pile diameter B, and the
effect of shallow penetration into dense strata. He suggested that
the ultimate end bearing resistance, qbu , of a bored pile in sand is
given by
2: qbu ¼ 0:3qc C 1 C 2
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) compiled a large database of
piles that had been statically load-tested, and proposed a design
approach known as the LCP method, which is widely used in
practice.
3: qbu ¼ k c qc
where kc is a reduction factor, which depends on the soil and pile
type, and for bored and auger piles in sand reduces from kc ¼ 0.4
(when qc << 12 MPa) to kc ¼ 0.3 for higher-strength soils. The
authors recommend that the design qc value be determined by
averaging the cone tip resistance over a distance 1.5B above
and below the pile tip, having excluded values that are in excess
of 30% of the average. They also suggest adopting a factor of
safety of 3 to avoid excessive settlements.
Recent design correlations tend to link the base resistance and
CPT qc at some specified pile base displacement level, typically
at 10% of the pile diameter, qb0:1 , using an empirical reduction
factor, Æ
4: qb0:1 ¼ Æqc
In keeping with observations for displacement piles in sand
(Lehane et al., 2005; White and Bolton, 2005), a constant Æ value
which is independent of soil strength, density or pile geometry is
often used: for example, Franke (1993) recommends Æ ¼ 0.2.
De Cock et al. (2003) compiled a review of pile design practice
in Europe, and found that Æ values commonly ranged between
0.15 and 0.2 However, much higher values were used, for
example, in the Netherlands, where an Æ value of 0.8 is
550
The base resistance of non-displacement
piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin
recommended for continuous flight auger (CFA) piles. This wide
variation is due at least in part to the range of methods adopted
to obtain the average qc resistance at the pile base. Lehane (2008)
compiled a database of CFA piles (many with enlarged bases)
installed in sand in Perth, Western Australia, and reported Æ
values that increased from 0.15 to 0.4 as the pile length (or
confining stress level) increased. Eurocode 7 Part 2 suggests Æ
values that, although independent of footing width and depth,
reduce from 0.2 for qc values up to 15 MPa to 0.16 for
qc ¼ 20 MPa.
Large-scale pile tests are expensive and time consuming, and
therefore most field tests consider only a relatively limited range
of either pile diameter or depths in sand where the relative
density is relatively constant. Finite-element (FE) analyses can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses for foundations. The analysis
of displacement piles is complicated by the need to model the
complex interaction effects caused during pile installation, but
approaches to account correctly for these issues are addressed by
Broere and Van Tol (2006), Henke and Grabe (2009) and Said et
al. (2009). The FE environment presents an ideal method for
modelling non-displacement piles.
Lee and Salgado (1999) reported FE analyses in which they
investigated the effect of pile length L (or stress level), coefficient
of earth pressure K0 at rest and relative density Dr on the
mobilised bearing resistance of 600 mm diameter bored piles.
They used the FE program ABAQUS with a user-defined, non-
linear elastic plastic soil model that incorporated non-linear
stiffness to investigate Æ values. The soil model included a
hyperbolic stress–strain relationship, and adopted a non-linear
form of the Drucker–Prager failure criterion. The CPT q c values
used to normalise the base resistance were derived from the
program CONPOINT (Salgado and Randolph, 2001). Their data,
shown in Figure 1(a), indicate that Æ reduced from ,0.2 to ,0.12
as the relative density increased from 30% to 90%. For a given
soil density, Æ also varied with pile length (or stress level): it
reduced as the pile length increased from 5 m to 20 m for piles in
loose sand (Dr ¼ 30%), and increased with pile length for sand in
dense sand (Dr ¼ 90%). The effect of varying K0 from 0.4,
representing a normally consolidated deposit, to K0 ¼ 1.0, for an
overconsolidated deposit, is shown in Figure 1(b) (for a pile length
of 5 m). It is clear that Æ decreased significantly with increasing
K0 for loose sand, whereas in dense sand deposits the Æ value did
not vary appreciably with K0 : The effect of K0 on mobilised Æ
was found to reduce as the pile length (or stress level) increased.
Ahmadi and Khabbazian (2009) report numerical analyses that
examined the effect of friction angle , pile diameter and pile
length (or stress level) on base resistance mobilised by bored
piles in sand. The analyses were performed using the finite-
difference code FLAC (2000) with a Mohr–Coulomb, elasto-
plastic soil model with stress-dependent stiffness parameters. The
effect of varying the pile diameter from 400 mm to 1200 mm, for
a 10 m long pile installed in sand with  ¼ 358, is illustrated in
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

0·25 3500

3000
0·20
Correlation factor, α ⫽ qb0·1/qc

2500

Base pressure, qb: kPa

0·15
2000

0·10 L⫽5m
1500
L ⫽ 10 m B ⫽ 400 mm
L ⫽ 20 m
0·05 1000 B ⫽ 800 mm

B ⫽ 1200 mm
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative density, Dr: % 0
(a) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0·25 Displacement, s: mm
(a)
3500
0·20
3000
α ⫽ qb0·1/qc

0·15
2500
Base pressure, qb: kPa

0·10 2000
Dr ⫽ 30%
Dr ⫽ 50% 1500
0·05 Dr ⫽ 70%
B ⫽ 400 mm
Dr ⫽ 90%
1000
B ⫽ 800 mm
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 500 B ⫽ 1200 mm
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0
(b)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 1. Normalised base resistance, qb0:1 /qc , against: (a) relative
Normalised settlement, s /B: %
density, Dr ; (b) coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, K0 (Lee
(b)
and Salgado, 1999)
Figure 2. Base resistance, qb , against: (a) settlement, s;
(b) normalised settlement, s/B (Ahmadi and Khabbazian, 2009)
Figure 2(a). The data show that, for a given footing settlement,
the mobilised bearing pressure reduced as the pile diameter
increased. The authors noted that when the normalised settlement suite of FE analyses was performed. The FE model was first used
was considered (Figure 2(b)), the bearing pressure mobilised by to derive CPT qc profile at the University College Dublin (UCD)
all piles was similar. The observation of a unique normalised dense sand test bed site in Blessington, County Wicklow. A suite
pressure–settlement curve is in keeping with observations by of sensitivity analyses was then performed in order to investigate
Briaud (2007), Gavin and Lehane (2007) and others. the effect of pile diameter and pile length (or stress level) on Æ
values mobilised in dense sand. In order to consider the effect of
It is obvious from the foregoing that there are considerable variations in relative density, these sensitivity analyses were
variations in recommended Æ factors. Although many database repeated for several well-characterised sand deposits from the
studies report constant Æ factors in the range 0.15 to 0.2, recent geotechnical literature.
numerical analyses and field tests suggest that higher values may
be adopted in some circumstances, where pile settlement due to 2. FE analyses
creep is separated from primary settlement (Gavin et al., 2013). Finite-element method (FEM) analyses were performed to con-
In an attempt to understand the parameters affecting Æ values, a sider the base pressure–settlement response of piles installed in

551
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

CPT qc: MPa

dense sand. The well-characterised UCD test site was chosen, as
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
extensive CPT and laboratory test data were available for input 0
into the soil constitutive model. In order to consider the effects of Test 1
the sand state, the analyses were repeated for well-characterised, 1 Test 2
natural, normally consolidated sands from the geotechnical
literature, namely Tanta, Monterey and Hokksund sand. The first Test 3
2
step in each suite of analyses was the determination of a Test 4
representative CPT qc profile. Pile load tests were then performed, 3
Test 5
where parameters including the pile length (or stress level), width
and sand density varied. Details of both stages are presented 4 Test 6

Depth: m
herein. Test 7
5
Test 8
2.1 Determination of FE model parameters for
Blessington sand 6 Test 9
The FEM analyses described in this paper were undertaken using Test 10
PLAXIS (2002). The sand was modelled using the hardening soil 7
(HS) model described by Schanz et al. (1999), and PLAXIS
(2002). The HS model is an advanced, elasto-plastic, effective- 8
stress soil model formulated in the framework of hardening
plasticity. The non-linear stiffness is defined by using three input 9
stiffness parameters: E50 , which represents the stiffness measured
in a triaxial compression test when the shear stress, , is 50% of 10 (a)
the maximum shear stress, max ; the triaxial unloading stiffness 800
Eur ; and Eoed , which is derived from an oedometer test. All Experiment
stiffness values are defined at a reference stress level, pref , of FEM
600
100 kPa. The stress-level dependence of stiffness can be defined
Stress: kPa

from the ratio of the current stress to reference stress raised to

400
the power m. A yield cap with an associated flow rule controls
volumetric plastic strains. The shear yield surface is defined using
the mobilised friction angle, and is formulated to yield a 200
hyperbolic stress–strain curve under triaxial conditions. The
mobilised friction angle is calculated using a slightly modified 0
form of stress-dilatancy theory proposed by Rowe (1962): see 0 0·005 0·010 0·015 0·020 0·025
Schanz et al. (1999). Strain
(b)
500
The UCD test bed site is located in Blessington, County Wicklow,
approximately 25 km south-west of Dublin. CPT testing at the 400
site has revealed that the heavily overconsolidated sand deposit is
σ1 ⫺ σ3: kPa

300
at least 18 m thick. The CPT end resistance qc value (see Figure
3(a)) increased from approximately 10 MPa at ground level to
200
20–30 MPa at 7 m below ground level (bgl). The water table is at
approximately 10 m bgl. Tolooiyan and Gavin (2011) report 100 FEM
triaxial compression tests and oedometer tests on reconstituted Experiment
samples of Blessington sand. The material had an in situ relative 0
density close to 100%, a constant-volume friction angle of 378, 0 0·005 0·010 0·015 0·020
and a dilation angle that varied with the confining pressure, and Axial strain
was 5.48 at the reference pressure of 100 kPa. (c)

The HS model parameters for Blessington sand were chosen
following a calibration procedure in which the laboratory oed-
ometer and triaxial compression test results were modelled using
PLAXIS. The laboratory tests were performed on reconstituted
samples of Blessington sand. Details of the sample preparation
procedure are described by Tolooiyan and Gavin (2011). The
oedometer test was modelled using an axisymmetric analysis
Figure 3. Field and laboratory tests for Blessington sand: (a) CPT
profiles; (b) oedometer; (c) triaxial test
performed on a soil element of unit dimensions (1 m 3 1 m). The
soil was assumed to be weightless. The boundary conditions were
set with the left-hand boundary as the axis of symmetry, and
normal displacements were restrained at the bottom right-hand

552
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

and left-hand boundaries, while tangential displacements were 5: qc ¼ plimit ð1 þ tan Ł tan Þ
free. A vertical load was applied to the sample in the calculation
phase, and the model parameters that describe the stress-depen-
dent stiffness, namely Eref
oed and the power m, were varied until a plimit values were calculated in the FE model using axisymmetric
reasonable match to the measured laboratory test results was analyses, performed using the mesh shown in Figure 4. In the
obtained: see Figure 3(b). model the vertical and horizontal boundaries were fixed at the

The triaxial test was modelled using a similar procedure. The

boundary conditions used in the oedometer test were changed to
restrain normal displacements at the left and bottom boundaries,
while tangential displacements were free. The calculation was Dummy layer
performed in two stages. In the first stage, an all-round cell
pressure that varied between 50, 100 and 200 kPa was applied.
Having set the displacements to zero, the second stage involved
loading the sample to failure by increasing the vertical stress r ⫽ 0·1 m
while maintaining a constant horizontal stress. Since the para-
Zoom
meters Eref
oed and m were known from the oedometer calibration, 21 m
and the oedometer unload–reload stiffness Eref
ur was measured in r⫽1m
the oedometer test, the Eref
50 value was varied until a reasonable
match with the experimental data was obtained (see Figure 3(c)).
The HS parameters thus derived are summarised in Table 1.

2.2 FE modelling of the CPT test

In this paper, the CPT qc resistance was modelled using spherical
cavity expansion analyses where the pressuremeter limit pressure,
10 m
plimit , can be related to the qc value if Ł, the cone angle, and ,
the friction angle of the soil, are known (Randolph et al., 1994), Figure 4. PLAXIS FEM geometry and cavity area
according to

Parameter Blessington Tanta Monterey Hokksund

Unit weight, ª: kN/m3 20 18.90 16.05 15.1

E ref
50 (Pref ¼ 100 kPa): kPa 44 000 40 000 35 000 20 000
E ref
ur (Pref ¼ 100 kPa): kPa 155 000 120 000 105 000 100 000
E ref
oed (Pref ¼ 100 kPa): kPa 25 000 40 000 35 000 25 000
Cohesion: kPa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ultimate friction angle: degrees 42.4 40 36.7 34
Ultimate dilatancy angle: degrees 6.6* 10 6.7 2.5
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Power m 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5
Rf 0.8 0.9 0.85 0.9
Tensile strength: kPa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
einit 0.373 0.377 0.661 0.760
emin 0.373 0.305 0.541 0.570
emax 0.733 0.593 0.885 0.950
Dr : % 100 75 65 50
Pref : kPa 100 100 100 100
800
OCR 1 1 1
depth 3 ª
K0 (1  sin ) 3 OCRsin  1  sin  1  sin  1  sin 

* Ultimate dilatancy angle (łm ) has been estimated using sin łm ¼ (sin m  sin cv )=1  sin m sin cv :

Table 1. HS parameters of sands

553
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

CPT qc: MPa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
Test 1
1 Test 2
Test 3
2 Test 4
Test 5
3 Test 6
Test 7
4 Test 8

Depth: m
8000 Test 9
5 Test 10
7000
Cavity pressure: kPa

6000 PLAXIS (HS)

6
5000
4000 7
3000
2·0 m depth
2000 5·0 m depth 8
1000 10 m depth
0 9
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Radial strain in cavity
10
(a) (b)
Figure 5. FE model of CPT tests: (a) cavity expansion; (b) CPT qc
profile

0·5B ⫹ 7B
2·5B

Dummy soil

Dummy concrete
5B

Shaft interface

Concrete

Base interface
7B

Soil
y

x
(a) (b)

Figure 6. PLAXIS FE: (a) normalised geometry; (b) mesh geometry

554
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

base, horizontal displacements were restrained at the right-hand
boundary, and the left-hand boundary was an axis of symmetry.
The mesh was 10 m wide and 21 m deep. Significant numerical
efficiencies were achieved by placing a 1 m dummy layer at the
top of the 20 m deep weightless soil deposit. Cavity expansion
analyses were thus performed using a single mesh and modelling
an increase in stress level (due to increasing penetrometer depth)
by varying the unit weight of the material in the dummy layer.
This procedure is essentially identical to applying surcharge
pressures at the upper and lower boundaries. The results of cavity
expansion analyses performed using a procedure described by Xu
and Lehane (2008) and Tolooiyan and Gavin (2011) are shown in
Figure 5(a). The CPT qc values predicted using the FE models
are compared in Figure 5(b) with the qc profile measured at
Blessington. It is clearly evident that the results from the HS
model, which was implemented using the soil properties derived
from the laboratory test calibration procedure, provided a reason-
ably good lower-bound estimate of the measured CPT qc profile
at depths greater than 2 m bgl. The tendency for the method to
underpredict the qc value at shallow depths (, 2 m) was investi-
gated by Tolooiyan and Gavin (2011). They found that when the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest was high (K0 . 2), a full
spherical plastic failure zone did not develop around the cavity,
and this resulted in an underestimate of plimit and therefore of qc
in this region. Since, in this paper, the minimum pile length
considered is 3 m, the limitation does not affect the results
presented herein.
2.3 Pile load tests
The pile load tests were modelled using 15-noded axisymmetric
elements in PLAXIS. Since the mesh size and density will affect
the result of any FE analyses, a normalised mesh geometry, which
depended on the pile width (see Figure 6(a)), was adopted.
Extensive calibration established that for the maximum displace-
ment levels chosen for the analyses (0.1B), a normalised distance
of 7B from the pile to any boundary was sufficient to eliminate
boundary effects. A refined mesh was used in the vicinity of the
pile base (see Figure 6(b)), resulting in a total of 723 elements,
6216 nodes and 86 766 stress points in the pile model. The effect
of varying pile length (or stress level) was considered by increasing
the stress level in the dummy layer (the soil in the model was
weightless). The HS parameters in Table 1 were used for Blessing-
ton sand and other sands considered. The pile was modelled as a
linear-elastic material with unit weight ª ¼ 23 kN/m3 and with a

6000 0·5
Bearing resistance, qb: kPa

B ⫽ 0·2 m, D ⫽ 6 m
5000
0·4 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
4000 B ⫽ 0·6 m, D ⫽ 6 m
qb /qc⫾1·0B

0·3 B ⫽ 0·8 m, D ⫽ 6 m
3000
B ⫽ 0·2 m, D ⫽ 6 m
0·2
2000 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
B ⫽ 0·6 m, D ⫽ 6 m 0·1
1000
B ⫽ 0·8 m, D ⫽ 6 m
0 0
0 0·02 0·04 0·06 0·08 0·10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, s: m Relative settlement, s/B: %
(a) (b)
0·6 0·6

0·5 0·5

0·4 0·4
qb /qc

qb /qc

0·3 0·3
qb0·1/qc⫾3·5B qb /qc-3B to ⫹2B
0·2 0·2
qb0·1/qc⫾1·0B qb /qc-4B to ⫹1B
0·1 0·1
qb0·1/qc⫾B0·75 qb /qc-8B to ⫹4B
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
Pile width: m Pile width: m
(c) (d)

Figure 7. Bearing pressure mobilised by piles installed in

Blessington sand: (a) effect of pile width; (b) normalised
pressure–settlement response; (c) assessment of zones of
influence above and below pile base; (d) assessment of zone of
influence more affected by sand above pile tip

555
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

Young’s modulus, E ¼ 200 GPa, which is typical for steel. The in
situ stress condition was established using the unit weight of the
soil and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR), using only soil
elements in the initial stage condition in PLAXIS. The soil
elements were replaced with pile elements, and the interface layers
were switched on using the staged construction phase in PLAXIS.
An interface reduction factor Rint ¼ 0.9 was applied at the pile
base, and Rint  0 was applied at the pile shaft to eliminate shaft
friction. This prevented interaction of side friction and end bearing,
allowing the pile to be considered as a footing installed at depth.
The bored pile was loaded axially until the pile settlement at the
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 3 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 5 m
6000 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 7 m
5000
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m
4000
qb: kPa
top of the pile reached 0.1B. Automatic mesh updating was
activated to accommodate the relatively large strains experienced.
3. Results of FE analyses
3.1 FE analyses of piles in Blessington sand
3.1.1 Effect of pile width
The effect of pile width, B, on the bearing pressure mobilised by
piles installed in Blessington sand was considered by analysing a
pile of fixed length, D ¼ 6 m, with a diameter ranging from 0.2 m
to 0.8 m. The piles were loaded until the settlement reached 10%
of the pile diameter (see Figure 7(a)). The maximum end bearing
resistance ( 5500 kPa) of all piles was similar. However, the
settlement required to achieve this resistance increased in propor-
tion to the increase in pile diameter. The normalised pressure–
settlement response is shown in Figure 7(b). This reveals that the
normalised stiffness response for the piles was very similar, with
Æ ¼ 0.31. Because of the range of methods used to estimate the
design qc in practice, a sensitivity analysis was performed to

3000 investigate whether the zone of influence over which the qc value
2000 is calculated affected the calculated Æ value. In the first assess-
ment three possible zones of influence were considered where qc
1000
was averaged over equal distances above and below the pile base,
:
0 namely to 3.5B, 1.0B and B0 75 . The results set out in Figure
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04
7(c) suggest that for the heavily overconsolidated Blessington
Settlement, s: m
sand, in which the CPT qc resistance does not vary greatly with
(a)
depth, the Æ value was insensitive to the zone of influence
0·5 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 3 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m

0·4 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 5 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m CPT qc: MPa

B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 7 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m
0 5 10 15 20 25
qb /qc⫾1·0B

0·3 0
Hokksund
0·2
2 Monterey
0·1 Tanta
4 Blessington
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative settlement, s/B: % 6
(b)
8
0·6
Depth: m

0·5 10
0·4
qb /qc

12
0·3
qb0·1/qc⫾3·5B
0·2 14
qb0·1/qc⫾1·0B
0·1
qb0·1/qc⫾B0·75
16
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pile length, L: m 18
(c)
20
Figure 8. Effect of pile length, L, on: (a) bearing pressure;
(b) normalised bearing versus nomalised displacement; Figure 9. Estimated CPT qc profiles for Hokksund, Monterey and
(c) normalised bearing pressure against pile length Tanta sand

556
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

assumed. Analyses in which the zone of influence is more
affected by sand above the pile tip in Figure 7(d) resulted in
calculated Æ values that increased with pile width.
3.1.2 Effect of pile length (stress level)
The effect of pile length, L, on the bearing pressure mobilised
was considered by analysing a pile of constant width (B ¼ 0.4)
with a length, L, that varied from 3 m to 8 m: see Figure 8(a). It
is evident that the pile end bearing resistance increased with
increased pile length, from qb ¼ 4800 kPa for the 3 m long pile
to qb ¼ 5750 kPa for the 8 m long pile. Whereas the normalised
stiffness response (see Figure 8(b)) is very similar for all the
piles, the correlation factor Æ in Figure 8(c) is seen to reduce
slightly with pile length (or stress level): from a maximum value
of 0.34 to a minimum of 0.31 as the pile length increased from
3 m to 8 m – that is, a 9% reduction.
1500 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
1200
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m
3.2 Effect of relative density Æ
In order to investigate the effect of sand density on the mobilised
Æ factor, sensitivity analyses were performed using three sand
deposits: Tanta sand from Egypt, which has an in situ relative
density Dr ¼ 75% (El Sawwaf, 2005, 2009); Monterey sand from
the United States, with Dr ¼ 65% (Wu et al., 2004; Yang et al.,
2008); and Hokksund sand from Norway, with Dr ¼ 50% (Tefera
et al., 2006). Synthetic CPT qc profiles were derived for these
deposits using the procedure described for Blessington sand. The
predicted CPT qc profiles are illustrated in Figure 9.
The sensitivity analyses were performed using a fixed pile
diameter (B ¼ 0.4 m) and a pile length that varied from 4 m to
8 m. The predicted pressure–settlement values are shown in
Figure 10. The highest qb values were measured in Tanta sand,
and the lowest were in Hokksund sand. The qb values at all sites
0·5
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
0·4
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m
qb /qc⫾1·0B

900 0·3
qb: kPa

600 0·2

300 0·1

0 0
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, s: m Relative settlement, s/B: %
(a) (a)
2500 0·5
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
2000 0·4
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
qb /qc⫾1·0B

1500 0·3 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m

qb: kPa

1000 0·2

500 0·1

0 0
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, s: m Relative settlement, s/B: %
(b) (b)
4000 0·5
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m 0·4 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 4 m
3000 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 6 m
qb /qc⫾1·0B

0·3 B ⫽ 0·4 m, D ⫽ 8 m
qb: kPa

2000
0·2

1000 0·1

0 0
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, s: m Relative settlement, s/B: %
(c) (c)

Figure 10. Pressure–settlement values predicted for: (a) Hokksund Figure 11. Normalised pressure–settlement values predicted for:
sand; (b) Monterey sand; (c) Tanta sand (a) Hokksund sand; (b) Monterey sand; (c) Tanta sand

557
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

increased as the pile length increased from 4 m to 8 m. The
increase was in the range 56–77%, with the highest increase
being in Tanta sand.
The normalised pressure–settlement response for all sites is
shown in Figure 11. At a given site, a relatively constant normal-
ised settlement response was predicted. However, there are
differences between sites, with the normalised resistance develop-
ing more slowly as the relative density increased. Gavin et al.
(2009) reported similar trends from field tests on shallow founda-
tions. Back-figured Æ values for all sites are shown in Figure 12.
Values of Æ values were similar at all sites, with a slight tendency
for it to increase as the pile length (or stress level) increased. This
was most noticeable in the dense sand deposit, when the zone of
influence considered was large (3.5B).
4. Discussion
Numerical analyses were performed to investigate the effects of pile
width, pile depth and sand relative density on the correlation factor
linking pile base resistance and the CPT qc value. The analyses

0·6 0·6

0·5 0·5

0·4 0·4
qb /qc

qb /qc

0·3 0·3
qb0·1/qc⫾3·5B qb /qc-3B to ⫹2B
0·2 0·2
qb0·1/qc⫾1·0B qb /qc-4B to ⫹1B
0·1 0·1
qb0·1/qc⫾B0·75 qb /qc-8B to ⫹4B
0 0
3 7 5 6 7 8 9 3 7 5 6 7 8 9
Pile depth: m Pile depth: m
(a)
0·6 0·6

0·5 0·5

0·4 0·4
qb /qc

qb /qc

0·3 0·3
qb0·1/qc⫾3·5B qb /qc-3B to ⫹2B
0·2 0·2
qb0·1/qc⫾1·0B qb /qc-4B to ⫹1B
0·1 0·1
qb0·1/qc⫾B0·75 qb /qc-8B to ⫹4B
0 0
3 7 5 6 7 8 9 3 7 5 6 7 8 9
Pile depth: m Pile depth: m
(b)
0·6 0·6

0·5 0·5

0·4 0·4
qb /qc

qb /qc

0·3 0·3
qb0·1/qc⫾3·5B qb /qc-3B to ⫹2B
0·2 0·2
qb0·1/qc⫾1·0B qb /qc-4B to ⫹1B
0·1 0·1
qb0·1/qc⫾B0·75 qb /qc-8B to ⫹4B
0 0
3 7 5 6 7 8 9 3 7 5 6 7 8 9
Pile depth: m Pile depth: m
(c)

Figure 12. Back-figured Æ values for: (a) Hokksund sand;

(b) Monterey sand; (c) Tanta sand

558
Geotechnical Engineering The base resistance of non-displacement
Volume 166 Issue GE6 piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin

3000 0·30
were performed using the commercial FE package PLAXIS. The
800 mm
HS model employed allowed the sand to be modelled with a non-

Normalised base resistance, qb /qc

2500 450 mm 0·25
linear, stress-dependent stiffness. As a first step in the analyses, the
soil model parameters established from laboratory tests were

Base pressure, qb: kPa

confirmed by performing spherical cavity expansion analyses at 2000 0·20
various depths in the soil deposit. These were used to generate a
synthetic CPT qc profile, which was seen to be in reasonable 1500 0·15
agreement with the qc profile measured at the UCD test site.
1000 0·10
Sensitivity analyses performed to investigate the effect of varying
sand relative density and the pile length revealed that once the qc 500 0·05
value used to normalise the pile resistance was averaged over a
suitable zone of influence (preferably 3.5B), the Æ factor was
0 0
insensitive to the influence of pile width, and increased only 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
marginally with depth in dense sand deposits. On the basis of Normalised base displacement, sb /B: %
these analyses, it seems that an approximate constant Æ factor of (a)
0.31 would produce reasonable estimates of the end bearing
3500 0·35
resistance of bored piles in sand. This value is approximately
800 mm
50% higher than values typically used in practice. 3000 450 mm 0·30

Normalised base resistance, qb /qc

Gavin et al. (2013) describe load tests performed on instrumented
Base pressure, qb: kPa

2500 0·25
CFA piles installed in dense sand in Killarney, south-west Ireland.
Load tests were performed on two piles, an 450 mm diameter, 2000 0·20
15 m long pile and an 800 mm diameter, 14 m long pile. The load
test procedure involved a maintained load test (MLT) followed by 1500 0·15
a fast-loading, constant rate of penetration (CRP) test. The results
1000 0·10
of the MLT portion of the load test are shown in Figure 13(a),
where it is clear that when the applied base pressure exceeded
500 0·05
1500 kPa, the piles experienced creep during load increments.
When the normalised base displacement reached 10% of the pile 0 0
diameter, the Æ factor approached 0.24. When the piles were 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
reloaded in the CRP test (see Figure 13(b)), significantly higher Normalised base displacement, sb /B: %
base resistance was mobilised. While acknowledging that the (b)
loading history would affect the initial pressure–settlement Figure 13. Measured base resistance of CFA piles in sand:
response, the Æ factors mobilised in the fast-loading tests (where (a) during maintained load test; (b) during rapid load test (after
creep effects were minimised) exceeded 0.31. Gavin et al., 2013)

The numerical analyses presented in this paper provide insights

into relationships between in situ test results and the base
pressure mobilised by deep foundations in sand. The soil models
used in the numerical analyses did not consider certain funda-
mental aspects of soil behaviour that affect real soils, and thus
may alter the Æ value mobilised at a given site. Site-specific
factors that should be considered include sand creep, grain
crushing at high stress levels, shear band development, anisotro-
py, and time dependence. In addition, the CPT profiles were
numerically derived, and while they were shown to match field
measured values, the numerically derived values did not include
natural variability. These effects would at least in part explain
why the Æ factors quoted in this paper are higher than many
quoted in the literature. It is obvious from the above discussion
that unique universal Æ factors may not be appropriate for all
design problems, and that geotechnical engineers should consider
the effects of fundamental soils behaviour, soil variability and the
loading conditions when choosing a design Æ value.
Acknowledgements
The CPT tests reported in this paper were performed in situ by
Site Investigations Ltd. The authors wish to thank Roadstone Ltd
for the use of the Blessington test site.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi M and Khabbazian M (2009) End bearing capacity of
drilled shafts in sand: a numerical approach. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 27(2): 195–206.
Briaud JL (2007) Spread footings in sand: load settlement curve
approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 133(8): 905–920.
Broere W and Van Tol AF (2006) Modelling the bearing capacity of
displacement piles in sand. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 159(3): 195–206.
Bustamante M and Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity
predictions by means of static penetrometer CPT. Proceedings

559
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 166 Issue GE6
of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
ESOPT-II, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 493–500.
De Cock F, Legrand C and Huybrechts N (2003) Overview of
design methods of axially loaded piles in Europe: report of
ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee. Proceedings of the 8th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 663–715.
El Sawwaf M (2005) Strip footing behaviour on pile and sheet
pile-stabilized sand slope. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 131(6): 705–715.
El Sawwaf M (2009) Experimental and numerical study of
eccentrically loaded strip footings resting on reinforced sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 135(10): 1509–1518.
FLAC (2000) Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Itasca
Consulting Group, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Franke E (1993) Design of bored piles, including negative skin
friction and horizontal loading. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium (Van Impe WF (ed.)).
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 43–57.
Gavin K and Lehane B (2007) Base load–displacement response
of piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44(9):
1053–1063.
Gavin K, Adekunte A and O’Kelly B (2009) A field investigation
of vertical footing response on sand. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering
162(5): 257–267.
Gavin K, Cadogan D, Casey P and Tolooiyan A (2013) The base
resistance of non-dislacement piles in sand. Part I: field tests.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Geotechnical Engineering, 166(6): 540–548.
Henke S and Grabe J (2009) Numerical modeling of pile
installation. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 1321–1324.
Lee JH and Salgado R (1999) Determination of pile base
resistance in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 125(8): 673–683.
Lehane BM (2008) Relationships between axial capacity and CPT
qc for bored piles in sand. Proceedings of the 5th
International Symposium on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles (BAP V), Ghent, Belgium, pp. 61–74.
Lehane BM, Scheider JA and Xu X (2005) CPT Based Design of
Driven Piles in Sand for Offshore Structures. Internal Report
No. GEO:05345, University of Western Australia, Australia.
Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of
cohesionless soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 82(1): 1–19.
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE 102(3): 197–228.
Meyerhof GG (1983) Scale effects of pile capacity. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 108(3): 195–228.
PLAXIS (2002) Finite element code for plane strain and
560
The base resistance of non-displacement
piles in sand. Part II: finite-element
analyses
Tolooiyan and Gavin
axisymmetric modelling of soil and rock behaviour, v. 8.2.
Plaxis bv, Delft, the Netherlands.
Randolph MF, Dolwin J and Beck R (1994) Design of driven piles
in sand. Géotechnique 44(3): 427–448.
Rowe PW (1962) The stress dilatancy relation for static
equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A
269(1339): 500–527.
Said I, De Gennaro V and Frank R (2009) Axisymmetric finite-
element analysis of pile loading tests. Computers and
Geotechnics 36(1–2): 6–19.
Salgado R and Randolph MF (2001) Analysis of cavity expansion
in sand. International Journal of Geomechanics 1(2): 175–192.
Schanz T, Vermeer PA and Bonnier PG (1999) The hardening soil
model: formulation and verification. In Beyond 2000 in
Computational Geotechnics: 10 Years of PLAXIS
International (Brinkgreve RBJ (ed.)). Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, pp. 281–296.
Tefera TH, Nordal S, Grande L, Sandven R and Emdal A (2006)
Ground settlement and wall deformation from a large scale
model test on a single strutted sheet pile wall in sand.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
6(2): 1–14.
Tolooiyan A and Gavin K (2011) Modelling the cone penetration
test in sand using cavity expansion and arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian finite-element methods. Computers and Geotechnics
38(4): 482–490.
White DJ and Bolton MD (2005) Comparing CPT and pile base
resistance in sand. Geotechnical Engineering 158(1): 3–14.
Wu J, Kammerer AM, Riemer MF, Seed RB and Pestana JM
(2004) Laboratory study of liquefaction triggering criteria.
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Paper No. 2580
(CD-ROM).
Xu X and Lehane BM (2008) Pile and penetrometer end bearing
resistance in two-layered soil profiles. Géotechnique 58(3):
187–197.
Yang KH, Zornberg JG and Wright SG (2008) Numerical Modeling
of Narrow MSE Walls with Extensible Reinforcements. Center
for Transportation Research (CTR), Austin, TX, USA.
WH AT DO YO U T HI NK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.